review_testOpen the draft review card. Retained for existing clients; get_test_definition also includes this card. Reads the saved draft without edits or launch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| testId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Open the draft in Uxia. | |
| testId | No | ||
| blockId | No | Server-assigned ID of the added block. Use it for subsequent edits and references. | |
| editable | No | ||
| definition | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / blockIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Server-assigned ID of the added block. Use it for subsequent edits and references.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that it 'reads the saved draft without edits or launch,' clarifying it has no launch side-effect (relevant given sibling launch_test) and noting its retained/legacy status — genuine context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action is stated first and the caveats follow. The telegraphic style is efficient though slightly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the low-complexity single-parameter shape keeps the burden small. Still, the undefined 'review card' concept and the entirely undocumented testId leave a meaningful gap an agent would want closed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter testId has 0% schema description coverage (no description, only a 24-hex pattern), and the description never mentions it or explains which test identifier is expected. With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action (opening the draft review card) and states it reads the saved draft, but 'review card' is jargon that isn't defined, leaving the concrete output/resource ambiguous. It does distinguish itself from get_test_definition, which is a plus, but the core purpose remains only partially clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions 'Retained for existing clients; get_test_definition also includes this card,' which implies this tool is legacy and that get_test_definition is a broader alternative. However, it never states explicitly when to prefer this tool over get_test_definition, so the routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.